Platforms are Starting to Take a Stance on A.I.
And It’s Not Even That Good Yet
Three kinds of people can’t stop talking about A.I.:
- Those who think it is the end of the world and humanity. A.I. is why they didn’t make more money this week, weren’t published or didn’t have any requisitions. They either overestimate or underestimate A.I. — honestly, it is hard to tell, but in any case, they loathe it with every fiber.
- Those who undervalue and disregard it altogether. To these people, it “really isn’t that good,” you can see right through it, and they could never be fooled by it or mistake it with the human hand.
- Those who say it is a powerful and impressive achievement of humanity. It is direct access and ownership over the collective consciousness.
Given these three very different views, it should not come as a surprise that platforms would start taking a vague or hesitant stance on A.I. generated content. No one knows where A.I. is headed precisely, but public perception might be the deciding factor. It seems that in spaces where A.I. might profoundly affect a company, they want to take a cautious approach until public perception becomes more apparent.
The other day, Medium released a statement stating they would throttle A.I.-generated content on their platform when it is not disclosed as a source.
Google is shaking in its boots, so there is no doubt where they stand — at least until it releases its own version or incorporates A.I. into its products and search engines.
Stack Overflow has “temporarily banned” A.I.-generated responses:
“The primary problem is that while the answers which ChatGPT produces have a high rate of being incorrect, they typically look like they might be good and the answers are very easy to produce. […] As such, we need to reduce the volume of these posts and we need to be able to deal with the ones which are posted quickly, which means dealing with users, rather than individual posts.”
Clarkesworld has added verbiage to their writer’s guidelines blacklisting A.I.-generated content with the possibility of opening it up in the future:
“We are not considering stories written, co-written, or assisted by A.I. at this time.”
The response to these messages is generally positive, with most people citing problems with Chat GPT itself, such as accuracy. Others are concerned about plagiarism, or even theft. And some suggest that the ban on A.I.-generated content should be permanent.
The internet wants to stop A.I.-generated content quickly because, as the moderators at Stack Overflow suggested, it is easy to generate content in numbers that we have never seen before, and that not only creates spam but could also ruin the integrity of our platforms by filling it with inaccurate, repetitive, and meaningless words.
Magazines like Clarkesworld seem relatively slow to ban A.I.-generated content, but I am not surprised because A.I. tools are still incapable of writing or even co-writing something decent. They have other safeguards as well, for example, they may limit simultaneous or multiple submissions and require a rest period before you submit something else.
As opposed to social media, editors curate magazines for quality; thus, there is less chance of something that is A.I. generated sneaking by. However, if I were an editorial team member at a literary magazine, I would not want to waste my time reading A.I.-generated text.
In Time, Will A.I. Harm Writers (and Artists?)
I think so.
A.I. will hurt writers in the same way that automation has always hurt working people. Humans will need to work cheaply or for free until automation eventually crowds them out entirely.
A.I. will hurt us if our values do not change.
If you follow me, you know that there is nothing innately harmful about automation or technology but how companies use it to displace working people or fail to distribute the benefits of automation to their employees and the community.
So, instead of banning or fearing it, why not go for the root of the issue? Our world needs to learn to pay humans, not because they are productive or talented, but because they are humans contributing to society.
What I am suggesting is the best approach because we will not stop the progression and proliferation of automation in our communities.
Eventually, the haves will beat the have-nots. For example, you may refuse to use computers as an adult. Still, if you cannot use one, it will severely limit your ability to function in a changing environment; otherwise, those who use computers will outperform or outproduce you.
How Can We Minimize the Harm Of A.I. Itself?
I don’t worry about tools like Chat GPT making us stupider or replacing the human touch because I think writing and art are valuable activities for humans to engage in. It makes you feel good. Creating A.I.-generated content may have its own level of skill or satisfaction, but it cannot make you feel the same way you do when you engage your mind and accomplish something with your hands. You have to really write, brainstorm, and outline to get the full benefits of writing as an art and healthy activity. No one and nothing can take that away from you if you want it.
Second, we need to recognize that we do not write for money. And you are not meant to write for money, I promise you. If you are like me, and storytelling is in your blood, then it was never meant to be a source of income. You write because you must write. And it would be best if you got paid for being a contributing member of society, plain and simple.
Third, we must establish what we expect from A.I. and decide what it actually is. At this point, we have not come to an actual consensus. For example, how does A.I. compare to the way our brains work? Is there anything inherently wrong with the way A.I. collects its data? If we can iron out those things, we will come a long way to reducing the potential harm that A.I. will have on us.
Medium recommends, and I wholeheartedly agree, that writers should cite their sources. It may become even more critical than ever in the age of A.I.
We should be open about whether or not we created a thing with A.I. or A.I. assistance. Anything else is dishonest. There is also a danger of misleading readers and wasting people’s time if there are guidelines that reject A.I.-generated work.
Cite your sources! Show your work! It is a good habit to get into anyway.
A.I. Has Value
Talented people are like rich people; they are blind to the concerns of the poor. They think they are entitled to what they have, and the way they got rich is the only legitimate way to become rich.
Look, what I am saying is if A.I. helps someone accomplish a goal. If it strengthens and assists their talent or lack of talent, then good. That is what it should do. That is why we create tools.
We have knives because we don’t have claws. The tiger doesn’t mock us for our lack of claws; she doesn’t call it appropriation or theft. However, with tools, we did become the apex species and displaced larger and more powerful predators in the food chain. If tigers saw that coming, they might have tried to stop it.
Imagine you struggle to complete something or that nothing seems to come out right. Do you deserve the tools to help you get there? Is it cheating? Or any less valuable when you finish? Is it human to use tools?
People need to create, and they need to share and be seen. And perhaps someone can tell a story with A.I. that they couldn’t tell otherwise. Maybe they will publish a story that they couldn’t publish otherwise. Why hate them for it?
The line between A.I.-generated, co-authored, and assisted, are muddy at best. And the separation between humans and machines is becoming vaguer every day. Eventually, A.I. will become an extension of yourself, like an artificial limb. We can mitigate the impacts that it has on our communities by taking the focus of creation off capital and onto human benefits. As platforms begin to take a stance on A.I.-generated content, I hope they will also consider the value that it can provide.
If you enjoyed this article, please give claps. You can give as many as 50 claps. Follow me if you want to read more of what I have to offer. Thank you for your support!
xx RW Blackwelsh